tv [untitled] March 15, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT
consistent or file a new permit to legalize the work. the second permit was filed in 2011. work has been done to global good deal -- lower the gable. the second 2011 permit was to document this change and this permit this was tried -- reviewed on. the project -- it was determined it meets the guidelines. others in the filing, the department has not received public correspondence. the department has determined the addition has created a significant adverse impact to
adjacent residences on the spot. the department finds the work does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. this concludes my presentation. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> d.r. requestor, you have five minutes. dat>> you need to start your presentation. it will come on. >> good afternoon. i am an architect in san francisco. in my 25th year of practice here. so proprietor. i would like to start with the
screen and show you what i consider to be an extraordinary circumstance. this is a permit, you can see by the day, february 3, 2011. the issued date is 2-25. something came happened and you had to come back 22 days later. it is to receive final inspection of the work under the earlier permit. all work is complete. on the backside, you will see a box checked that states that planning is required. their review. the word "n/a" had been written in crossed out -- in and crossed out by the department of building and actor -- inspection. this document appeared which does not have the february 3 stamp at the top. when we look at the back of
that all-important planning requirement, it looks as if there is a third word. it is planning required. both of these applications were approved by dbi on the same day, by the same person and neither was referred to the planning department. that is extraordinary. one permit usually is enough. why they differ is not -- is a good question. not our purview. i would hope it is exceptional that a request to alter an historic resource is allowed to be issued by dbi without planning department review or approval. i hope that is the exception. we have an extraordinary circumstance and at least we have, one hopes, the exceptional circumstance. when one gets a permit from dbi
and one begins to work on that permit, it is referred to in legal language as having invested. unfortunately for mr. west, who was the original applicant in 2000, he was not able to begin his project and as a result, no work was performed and the permit expired. nine years later or nine days later, one needs to start from scratch at dbi. planning will give you a four- year break on a renewal. even if you start over with dbi and you have got through the 3- 11 process, you do not have to start over. with planning. for years and nine years are quite different. by a factor of two, this permit had expired and needed to start from scratch. when i spoke to the zoning administrator by found, before i
knew the facts of this case, i relate them to him as if understood them at that time. that the permit had expired nine years prior. that it was renewed and would it have to begin again? he said it would. it would require a 3-eleven notice. it would require [unintelligible] for the department. for the decade that has passed since 2001, the environmental review process has changed significantly. it is possible that the final result of the permit application might be different. that hung in my mind as i watched the permit their revoked, correctly, for having been incorrectly -- permit get revoked, correctly, for having been incorrectly approved. if this is framed under permit that had been revoked because it was issued in error, it might be
ok, that is not the same as the interpretation. i believe that the 1996 interpretation was for a permit that was legally sought and burned by the project sponsor. in this case, at the time of the consideration, it was revoked because it had been issued in error. before the commission today is the correction permit for the original application. why is that? they did not accept the plans as they have been drawn and as they had been incorrectly renewed, when the permit was reinstated in august, it was discovered although that work had been done that they had exceeded the scope of the permit. they had altered the facade which was to be restored, there was an existing would -- wood siding notice. the siding was removed.
there was an existing door, existing to remain. there were a number of things, fireplace locations that do not relate to planning. the infill of the bay was the one. it is that 10 years later environmental review. seeking some guidance from the department, we went to the hpc and we asked them to consider the purpose of this permit. mr. fry reported back in fact, the review process had changed and the department would not have allowed that to the infilled. if you look at the site today, all the detail and around the bay on both the first and second stories are similar. when we make a historic
addition, we mimic the work that was done in the past. when we made complaints to the owner, all the other items were shunted aside and the only one that remained in effect being addressed was the fact the roof was 2 feet too high. they lowered it 6 inches. that was not 2 feet. we're not here to punish anyone or to take anyone to task. the band-aid correction which was allowed to cherry pick only one of the issues among the many problems of this application is not in our opinion the way to solve this problem. we have a different idea for a solution and we need your help. we are here for the integrity of your planning process and to see that all of the rules that apply to one, in fact, apply
to all. this is not this commission's problem nor should it be your staff pose a problem. the problem lies with the permit. its sponsors, and the corners that they chose to cut. police say no to those shortcuts on behalf of those who do comply -- please say no to the shortcuts on behalf of those who do comply with planning code and wait their turn to build. respect the balance for the applicants who follow the code and meet their ceqa obligations. denied his permit. -- does permit. -- and this permthis permit. >> other any speakers in support of this d.r.? >> i am a member of the little house committee. i am here to support the request for that commission to take discretionary review on the
project. on july 7, 2012, i filed the complaint with the planning department describing the planning code violations for this 9904 victorian house. i decided that no 311 notice had been sent. the permit was not referred to planning review before the permit issued. i quoted the original permit's scope of work in 2000 was to restore the victorian facades cannot reconstruct it. i provided photos that showed the lack of compliance with the secretary of interior is guidelines that were made without planning department approval. on august 17, i brought my concerns to the historic preservation commission. by this time there was a new complaint, the roof was twoo feet too h igh.
-- to high. the project had filed a permit. the staff announced that the expanded bay would be removed and the commissioner asked to have his concerns about his -- rain noticing -- renoticing passed on. the -- this is not correct the compliance problems i have noted nor those reported in the historic preservation commission report. the planning staff report does not mention your sister commission's recommendations. much less support their implementations. i expected all these items in my complaints and those from the historic preservation commission would be addressed by this correction permit.
they are not. today, you have the opportunity to take discretionary review to restore the integrity to your process of enforcing the planning code. then, the planning code violations that started when the renewal application bypassed the planning board review will finally be resolved. when you take d.r., you will right the wrongs this project has been subjected to. thank you very much for your consideration. >> are there other speakers in support of the d.r.? if not, project sponsor? you have five minutes. >> if they had any more time that would convince you had kidnapped marilyn monroe and i had her in the basement.
that is not the facts. this is an $1,000 provision. the city is going to get fees of $60. mr. sanches will tell you his department probably spent 160 hours, 170 hours. dbr has probably set -- spent the same. we're in the middle of the recession and these people hijack this process to take us on america around. it is a $1,000 revision permits. not the underlying permit. the underlying permit is approved on final. it is not under review so it is not subject to any d.r. or any appeal process. there is a revision of $1,000 that has cost that takes -- the taxpayers 60 granderson of the grand to go on this married around. -- 60 grand for 70 grand to go
on athis merry go round. >> my name is patrick spears. all inspections by the city and special inspections by the engineer rec are 100% complete and recorded. the house is finished and signed off, december 5, 2011, pending this provision. this to reverberate what happened, the building -- just to reverberate what happened, the building was inspected and the building was measured as planned. not too feet -- two feet too high. this complaint has no merit. it is full of false accusation, and is a gross misuse of the
d.r. process. we are proud of the restoration of the victorian house. the neighbors love it. countless people who turned toward the open house. please dismiss this fictitious complete. there is no cause for this discretionary review. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a lifelong san francisco resident and i wanted to speak in support of this project. not to take d.r. the commission needs to keep what is in front of it in front of it. there's a lot of accusations regarding process. the facts are this. we applied for a permit, the permit was approved, the permit was issued, built according to the permits, and filed a permit to come into compliance when
there was a difference in the interpretation as to the highest in relationship to the facade. they brought that into compliance with the original permit. there should be no need to file a planning permit to come into compliance with the original permit. that is the course that was taken and here we are now. they have had the notice now, they are complaining there was no notice. there has been a notice for this hearing and you can see who came. it was not the next-door neighbors, it was not that neighbors across the street. it is these folks who have an issue with the process and their issues -- if there is apt problem with the issue should not be -- if there is a problem with the issue, they should not be here. they're punishing people who have been issued a permit from the city, we're working in accordance and we're being punished because we are doing what we were supposed to do. people who have complaints with the process and with individuals and complete with people in other departments are trying to
use this process and they are hurting people who are trying to make an honest living. we have been severely financially damaged by this but like i said, this is our city, we want to live here and work here, and hopefully this commission can see what issues are before us and deny the d.r. so we can afford. thank you. -- so we can move forward. thank you. >> d.r. requestor, you have rebuttal. >> thank you. joseph butler. the project sponsor is mr. spears and mr. quinn, they say they got their inspections, they got their permit, the work was done, it was finished and signed off. if the permit was for final inspection only and all work was
complete, that is the fiction. that all the work was done. i think that it does not take too much to understand that rather than the first time around when it took six months to go through the planning process, these delmon could not wait. they found another way. if you misrepresent the application that issues a permit, that is on its face a fiction. to say that a permit for final inspection, all work is complete, is then constructed from scratch, they have admitted it here. your process involves a long and patient record of proposed construction. when this happened, the face that everyone who follows the rules has in the process is
harmed. -- faith that everyone who follows the rules has in the process is harmed. we would like the -- this would have happened if there were allowed to review the permit application. we're not try to do something that should not already have been done. thank you for your time. president fong: project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> pass. commissioner miguel: i could say a lot about the d.r. process but i am going to skip all that. the only thing i see in front of us is a building permit basically to lower the roof. since that is the only thing in front of us that has been done,
i am going to move that we do not take d.r. and approve. >> second. commissioner antonini: i feel the same way. i am not sure how this is before us. i see you what party is before us and a smaller -- and i see what party is before us. the arguments have been made that this could be done by staff without going through full hearing and that would be the case, this would fall into that category as staff has said in the report. it is unfortunate it takes a much staff time and the correction has been made. everything is compliant with what was found to be a problem. i do not understand the whole issue. >> when someone files a discretionary review, and may only cite one issue they're having a problem with, during
the discretionary review hearing process, other commissioners are -- commissioner sam -- may see other issues that pertain to a particular design in question period is not within the purview and discretion of the commission then to take a look at those other issues? >> the commission can address issues that are not raised by the d.r. requestor i in your view of a building permit application that is before you -- by the d.r. requestor in your view of the building permit application that is before you. >> there are questions of the process leading up to what happened in 2011 that calls into question -- i will not go to the dbi route, causing this to
question whether there should be heard by the planning department. one thing that is curious to me is mr. butler showed one of the permits as being checked as planning required. that is in exhibit 3a. there is no planning department signature under the box. i think that signature belongs to the building inspector who also initialed on the front page of the cost at $150,000. those signatures are identical. it calls into question who signed off for planning in the first place. and then somehow, in mr. butler's other exhibit, 4a, the one he pointed out where it says planning all the sudden does not require and that is signed off by the same dbi staff person. i think that sort of calls into
question how this all involved, whether or not if it had come to planning, i understand the zoning administrator's determination on this. the fact that it should have come before the planning department and then there should have been a review as has been pointed out, not only has environmental change, but i do not know what building code this was finally approved under. in any case, i will not go there because we're not dbi. there were changes that would have required more extensive review for this particular project, had it been properly routed. i'm going to have to vote against the motion. i will make a substantive motion. to take d.r. and to have the following conditions. one, that the bay that was extended forward be removed and
secondly, the facade be restored as it was originally stated in the first permit. it does state, the assaad restoration. we all know what that means. -- it does state, facade restoration. and be rough year -- referred to the restoration commission for review. >> there is alive motion on the floor that has been properly seconded and that motion has to go through the process and if it passes, your motion is moved -- moot. commissioner moore: this is an extremely difficult thing to understand but partially because it is quite old. none of us participated or ever heard about this to any level of detail. this is not, for me, about saying you're right, you're
wrong but it is about process. we in the time this group has been together and some of us have been long on this, there have been several very large and kind of prominent cases where something was done that went bad. this is one of them. what we did, the majority of us sat on is the el camino, which came back through a number of cycles. we thought we would go back to square one and start all over with properly going through the process and in this thing, if there is such a thing as a statute of limitations, it is difficult to fully grasp of what went wrong. that would be the fairest way of doing it. other than supporting
commissioner sugaya's moshin which takes us -- motion. for the sake of our being consistent, send it back and let it work itself out your proper process applied today. commissioner wu: i want to ask staffer questioned. i think i know the answer but i want to confirm. who's job is it to make sure that the work proposed in the drawings meets with the permit says? >> it is favre possibility of the department of building inspection -- is the responsibility of the department of building inspection. i was going to add on about the department of building inspection. commissioner sugaya noted concerns. this has been identified as an issue. they have changed their process
regarding renewal of these permits and to better ensure they are routed to planning. there has been complaints about -- routed to inspection and they will have a hearing next week. commissioner antonini: this is a project that predates this hearing so we should not hold them to something that has not been brought up. i think it is a dbi issue. it seems to me the permit was granted. it was followed to the letter of the permit except for one item that was found and that was the height problem. that was asked to be corrected and it was corrected. it is a very simple thing. it is disquieting. i appreciate citizens going out to right wrongs, but d.r. requestor is are closer than 4.6 miles from the site and have
some extraordinary or unusual impact on their property and i do not see this as being -- it is not a test case to try to penalize someone for following what they were asked to do. i do not understand any reason to expand this because no one could do anything in san francisco if this kind of precedent is set. the idea of making people change the out side of something that has been finished and signed off on makes no sense to me. this idea of having to not make something match the rest of the structure has always bothered me. that is not before us. i would not like to see that happen. it sends a chilling message to anybody trying to do work in san francisco, that is more than you can expect. commissioner borden: what is before us is the permit related
to the couple inches -- that 2 ft. -- 6.5 inches of the gable roof. we could take beyond that permit. i always understood the building permit was specific to the permit before us. not previous other permits the are not before us. >> the scope of the permit before you is to shave down this top 6 inches of the line in order to comply with the approved plan, the scope of the permit. we would need to cancel may be about the full limit. commissioner borden: i am kind of confused. it opens up the specter -- the challenge and i definitely recognize there is an issue, are crowding issue and an inconsistency that has